Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

POTUS threatened that political dissenters  would ultimately be met with F-15s and nuclear weapons , but any  political countering done in concert with religious people would be unprincipled ? Too pragmatic? We aren't 'there' yet ?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/6/2021 at 4:05 PM, Easy Truth said:

Meanwhile, communitarianism/collectivism/altruism is a myth since it is a nonsensical/(ultimately supernatural) story that people tell each other about fantastic beings called society and government that have these wonderous powers and responsibilities 

What's the point of equivocating mythology with false beliefs? This does even match how people usually mean the word myth, which are narratives that express cultural values as stories. You might as well call Objectivism a mythology if collectivism is a mythology. There is no basis you gave to think otherwise.

Do you think using mythological metaphors somehow makes mythology a valid analysis? I mean, it sounds like you are making a mythology to explain the psychology of people you disagree with politically because you can't comprehend what their beliefs actually are. No, they don't believe in a mythology of government as a father figure. Not that a secular mythology is impossible, but in this case mythology has nothing to do with it, you are talking about collectivism in general. It's like saying Plato was literally making a mythology to believe by writing the Republic, but that wasn't what he was doing.

As far as the idea that believing in the soul is at least somewhat compatible with individualism, it just doesn't work that way. It might make more sense for us as atheists to think of the soul as something like an individual, but that's not accurate. It's distorting their belief to make it more compatible with yours. I guess everyone mythologizes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

Then I have a stronger argument, because I'm not arguing for a permanent alliance. You ally in order to defeat a common enemy. Once the left is crushed, there will be no need for an alliance against the left.

The pertinent point being that the aim here is NOT to ¬convert¬ anyone to rationality; the nature and ridiculousness of faith hardly needs more invalidation than has been stated by Objectivists and others a thousand times. The religious know the critical arguments very well. Those differences won't change, nor would the rational opposition, but continuing to hammer the basic divergences only becomes gratuitous (shooting fish in a barrel comes to mind).

The only point, is and remains - who can one work with? Who can best be 'converted' to recognize the best political/economic/social outcomes (leaving aside ethics and metaphysics)? Who else, in a conservative majority that is not shared by the small minority of Objectivist-libertarian types, can be aligned to our cause? (Not we to theirs).  

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

why not go all the way and propose an alliance with the Nazi groups, Q Anon, White Supremacist and the people who want a "worker's party" etc.

Going all the way with the religious right doesn't lead to Nazis and Qanon. It leads to rightist groups defined by religious identity. But I'm not sure we need to associate with the fringe religious groups, it might be enough to work with or lend political support to mainstream ones that are friendly to Objectivists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have heard a conservative acknowledging that the fringe groups on both sides eventually converge at the bottom (when seeing the right and the Left departing in "a circle" instead of a flat line extending out to their extreme ends) and are one as bad as the other. That received my agreement, she was one who can be worked with.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Eiuol said:

What's the point of equivocating mythology with false beliefs? This does even match how people usually mean the word myth, which are narratives that express cultural values as stories. You might as well call Objectivism a mythology if collectivism is a mythology. There is no basis you gave to think otherwise.

Based on the definition you are going by, that may be the case.

I am going by "a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Doug Morris said:

What exactly did he say, and in what context?

Speaking to 2nd Amendment concerns during a press conference “you know the thing .. you bleed the tree uh water the tree.. uh anyway if you’re gonna get at the government you come up against F15 s and nuclear weapons “ barely paraphrasing .

So the context was those who may disagree with Federal gun control regulations , by whatever form whether by legislation or executive order will be met with the full force of the armed forces.

Being Presidential , Biden style I suppose .

Edited by tadmjones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, tadmjones said:

Speaking to 2nd Amendment concerns during a press conference “you know the thing .. you bleed the tree uh water the tree.. uh anyway if you’re gonna get at the government you come up against F15 s and nuclear weapons “ barely paraphrasing .

You need to give more specificity and context about what exactly he was answering.

Was he talking about dissent or violence or what?

Was someone suggesting that people need weapons so that they can overthrow the government if necessary, or what?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael Reagan, who criticized the statement, quoted it as “Those who say the blood of Patriots, you know, and all the stuff about how we’re gonna have to move against the government … if you think you need to have weapons to take on the government, you need F-15s and maybe some nuclear weapons.”  Biden was saying that anyone who wants to overthrow the government by force needs "F-15s and maybe some nuclear weapons.” 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He was talking about how there has always been a limitation on weapons since the inception of the 2nd amendment, and that his administration would have a zero tolerance policy toward gun show dealers who willfully violate existing existing laws and regulations.

He started with the admonition that if you are going to come after the government you need F15s and nuclear weapons. He framed his remarks as a response to hypothetical gun regulation resistance at the outset of the comments with a tried but jumbled Jefferson quote about the tree of liberty. So his remarks were aimed at people who think American patriotism consists at least in part of the recognition that the right to keep and bear arms is an essential component of a nation of free individuals.

I take those remarks from a sitting President to be rather authoritarian and frankly chilling.

What rational person would not agree that criminals should not be given easy access to firearms , who is the threat aimed at? What is the need to preface remarks in such a manner ? And to whom are they aimed , the President routinely threatens his fellow citizens with their own military ? No more posse comitatus? Gun show licensing is his Rubicon ? 

Edited by tadmjones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has it ever been the case that ordinary citizens could overthrow a government without a military force?

The founders recognized that aspect of societal structure , no? That is what was meant about state militias , allowing the individual sovereign states the ability to defend from encroachment of the federalized forces , yes ?

 

Edited by tadmjones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’ve also always assumed the intent of the phrasing meant the militias would be funded by the separate states. Was there ever a period where the states had a tradition of militia as regular intrastate function?

Ive never looked into that aspect of US military history, but again assumed the practice was common mostly from reflecting on the naming of units in say Civil War histories.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good question, DC v. Heller means , currently, SCOTUS holds that the right to keep and bear arms is vested in individuals , but allows for constitutional regulation.

 

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment

 

I haven't looked too deeply into the various legal arguments and legal theory surrounding the Amendment, but I wager it has to do with the 'commas' and wording "..necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms , shall not be infringed" .

But to me, it 'feels' like, the intent was to allow for militias as a government function of the individual states ( as protection against federalized encroachment and to secure themselves against possible actions from other free states) , and including the right of individuals to own fire arms, because of the use of the words 'free state' and subsequently the use of the word 'people'. The phrase 'shall not be infringed' implies they viewed possession of fire arms as a 'natural' right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

We interviewed David Kelley about his history in the Objectivist movement, that time ARI tried to buy him out, and his view on open Objectivism among other things. I'm a closed system guy so we debated that issue a bit starting around 40:07. Check it out!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...